client_unarchiveChat

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. 'Changes archive state' is ambiguous and discloses neither the specific action (unarchive) nor any side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, but it is vague and under-specified. Conciseness is not effective when the content omits critical details, making the tool's purpose unclear.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description still leaves the behavior ambiguous. The presence of the sibling client_archiveChat amplifies the need for explicit clarification, which is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (chatId and sessionId), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents them, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb 'changes' is vague and does not specify the direction of the archive-state change. Although the tool name implies 'unarchive', the description could apply equally to archiving or unarchiving, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool client_archiveChat.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this reverses client_archiveChat or that it should be used specifically for unarchiving chats.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.